20 Apr 09
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, first Venezuela...
It's useless quoting facts to a free market fanatic, but the Venezuelan economy's growth under Chavez has been most impressive esp. considering that in the 2 decades prior workers' income had declined. Sorry, reality doesn't reflect your laissez faire dreamworld (but it never does).
Nor has Chavez "turned his back on his country's Constitu ...[text shortened]... page 7: From 1978-1998, Venezuela’s per
capita GDP declined by 21.5 percent.
Do you know anything about the Venezuelan economy? Are you aware that it runs on oil and that pre-Chavez government were attempting to grow many parts of the non-oil economy including industry and services? Are you aware the only reason economic growth accelerated under Chavez was due to the stratospheric and temporary rise in world oil prices? Are you actually trying to give Chavez some credit for the rise in oil prices?
Sorry reality doesn't reflect your pro-Chavez dreamworld (but it never does).
Chavez is a dictator who is destroying the non-oil economy that took so many years to build. Why do you think most if not all other economies in the world have been privatizing more industries while Chavez nationalizes them during times of high oil prices?
Chavez attempted a coup against his government. You defend that? We agree that Chavez changed the Constitution. He ended term limits while he's President and the change will apply to him, so he will be able to keep running indefinitely even as he uses all the power of the state to maintain his hold on power. He has received authority to rule by decree. He prosecutes the opposition using the state's judiciary. You excuse that? He has shut down opposition television stations. Why must socialists censor non-government-owned media? Why must people now experience shortage on basic foodstuff that didn't exist before Chavez's "21st century socialism"?
Your Quote on the Venezuelan economy overlooks the important and obvious fact that money from that same amount of oil has not only increased, but has passed on throughout the economy as it always does. You know, like housing in the US affected the rest of the economy... and how the oil price crash has and will continue to affect the Venezuelan economy... However who do think will withstand this better, the US or Venezuela?
All your statistics are a reflection of oil prices, their effects on increased government spending and increased pass-through to the private economy. Why do you think Chavez is now desperately trying to get Obama to accept him as something other than an anti-american nutcase?
You could just see chavez with his arms outstretched to Obama begging, "love me!"
As for Cuba:
Cuba is better off? Are you kidding me? I suppose that the Soviet Union was as well of as people thought before the closed society opened up to the world too? The average Cuban experiences shortages and long lines to get the most basic foods and supplies... THAT IS NOT BETTER OFF. I agree with educating the people, that is an investment that even Castro could not mess up. If Cuba is not poverty-stricken, where would your keen insights into this closed society place the average Cuban income?
Let's face it no1mar,
the Venezuelan economy is falling off a cliff just as the US economy has done, but neither of them have the time to reach the lows of Communist Cuba, nor does the US have the political inclination to go in that direction.
Quote your facts that contradict these facts.
See the other quotes on this tread: "oil, oil, oil..."
As for my views versus yours,
don't tell me you don't love the benefits of the free market too?
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by scherzo1. At least you admit that they went against the existing Constitutions of the time.
[b]Can you deny that Castro and Chavez turned their backs on their nations' Constitutions and strengthened their holds on power?
No. Nor do i deny that the previous Constitutions were extremely corrupt.
Chavez is doing the same in Venezuela - turn back on constitution, check. destroy capitalism in the country and its wealth-creating effects o ...[text shortened]... .....
The second part was impressive, but I don't know what it was supposed to prove.
2. Tomato, tomatoe... just a misspelling, not a political scandal or anything.
3. We agree that socialists states tend to fall down. As for coming up, why do you suppose that Russia is considered a developing nation now days? It's sad really, how great and mighty they were made out to be when really they've bee this sick and sniveling child suffering from socialism. China learned from Russia's opening up to the world though, don't show the world your dirty socialist laundry, just transition to capitalism and let growth cure many of those old ills.
4. I agree, oil IS the Venezuelan economy. Amazingly though, there were shortages under Chavez during times of high oil prices, and there are shortages after the prices have come down. Chavez put caps and ceilings on the price of food, so now for some economic reasons foreign to socialists, nobody, not you or anyone else in the world, seems to be sending enough foot for super-cheap to the Venezuelans. Perhaps they need to just make a law to make food free and just ask for handouts and donations from charity instead?
...
as for the second part, you gotta admit that was funny, just being facetious there, nothing more.
20 Apr 09
5 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderObama is much more articulate and diplomatic than I would have been, but its not like I wouldn't have at least tried. What I would have said was something like, "Yea, the US have been a bunch of imperialistic pigs haven't they? For years they have tried to exploit the worlds natural resources and put down the common man. I feel your pain my Marxist brother, yada, yada, yada, now how bout some of that there oil you got?
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad -- President Obama offered a spirit of cooperation to America's hemispheric neighbors at a summit Saturday, listening to complaints about past U.S. meddling and even reaching out to Venezuela's leftist leader.
While he worked to ease friction between the United States and their countries, Obama cautioned leaders at the Summit o ng and "for us or against us" blather of our last administration. Kudos to him.
Edit: I'll sign my book for ya if you sign yours for me. Who knows, maybe the books we both wrote will be worth something some day? 😛
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree. I think Bush and Co. were sincerely trying to do a good job, but there tactics were heavy handed and stupid. This led to much anti American sentiment around the world. Obama is using a more respectful approach which will be very useful when negotiating with other countries.😏
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad -- President Obama offered a spirit of cooperation to America's hemispheric neighbors at a summit Saturday, listening to complaints about past U.S. meddling and even reaching out to Venezuela's leftist leader.
While he worked to ease friction between the United States and their countries, Obama cautioned leaders at the Summit o ...[text shortened]... ng and "for us or against us" blather of our last administration. Kudos to him.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusMilton Friedman often pointed out that government interference in a free market tended to make things more expensive. So if one aspect of "better off" is being able to afford, say, a DVD player -- let's examine Cuba.
Cuba is better off?
For a long time, the government said people could not own DVD players. So what was the cost? Essentially infinite.
Then, Raul Castro approved sales of certain items, like cell phones, DVD players, and rice cookers. But what was the cost of these items? Nominally, only a few dollars -- EXCEPT that for most Cubans, the cost represented a month's salary.
Translating that back into the US, that would be like DVD players costing $3000 or so (one month's wages for someone earning $36,000/year).
The same principle operates in US Health Care -- it is a highly regulated system which has a resulting disproportionately high cost. In Europe, they try to make a regulated system less expensive by adding MORE regulation. This drives the direct cost down some, but increases indirect costs in government monitoring, etc. So the system still doesn't approach what a free market would achieve.
Generally speaking, it is impossible for socialism to produce a society which is materially "better off" than would result from a free market.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by eljefejesus1. At least you admit that they went against the existing Constitutions of the time.
1. At least you admit that they went against the existing Constitutions of the time.
2. Tomato, tomatoe... just a misspelling, not a political scandal or anything.
3. We agree that socialists states tend to fall down. As for coming up, why do you suppose that Russia is considered a developing nation now days? It's sad really, how great and mighty ...[text shortened]... r the second part, you gotta admit that was funny, just being facetious there, nothing more.
But that was a good thing.
2. Tomato, tomatoe... just a misspelling, not a political scandal or anything.
On this forum, anything and everything can be interpreted as a political scandal.
3. We agree that socialists states tend to fall down
What? Only temporarily as the nation gets adjusted. So we don't agree on anything.
As for your comments on the Communist USSR and Communist China (which only exists in name right now), neither were ideal because of the prosecution needed to make Stalinism and Maoism work.
And Venezuela is doing fine right now economically.
as for the second part, you gotta admit that was funny, just being facetious there, nothing more.
I see.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by spruce112358Keep believing in the free market fairy tale and Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman often pointed out that government interference in a free market tended to make things more expensive. So if one aspect of "better off" is being able to afford, say, a DVD player -- let's examine Cuba.
For a long time, the government said people could not own DVD players. So what was the cost? Essentially infinite.
Then, Raul Castro ...[text shortened]... produce a society which is materially "better off" than would result from a free market.
Measuring the well being of a Third World country based on DVD player sales is beyond stupid, even for you.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusYour assertions are noted. They are not based on any facts and/or statistics - rather it's simply the "hold yer breath till you turn blue" type of argument. You believe in your laissez faire religion and no amount of evidence is going to change your "mind".
Ok, first Venezuela...
Do you know anything about the Venezuelan economy? Are you aware that it runs on oil and that pre-Chavez government were attempting to grow many parts of the non-oil economy including industry and services? Are you aware the only reason economic growth accelerated under Chavez was due to the stratospheric and temporary rise in ...[text shortened]... s versus yours,
don't tell me you don't love the benefits of the free market too?
As already stated many times in this forum, Chavez didn't end term limits - the Venezuelan people did. Virtually every country in Latin America has emergency powers laws - Chavez, unlike some others, has never declared such an emergency even when there was an abortive coup against him. The media in Venezuela is overwhelmingly anti-Chavez and operates freely. And on and on and on.
Other countries are oil exporters; how many can match the economic and social record of Chavez's Venezuela in the last 10 years?
None. You may dream about the collapse of the Venezuelan economy, but you're almost certainly going to be disappointed. Chavez has done the one thing necessary for an economy that the US has failed to do; improve the lot of consumers and reduce income inequality. The US economy has shovelled virtually all income growth to the top 10% or less for the last 30 years while burying itself in debt to fund consumer transactions that the stagnant incomes of workers couldn't afford. Given the present crisis of international capitalism it is a weird time to extol the virtues of unrestricted, unregulated "free markets" (like the one for mortgage backed securities?). Only massive government intervention in the markets has a chance to avoid depression in the US but you feel free to criticize Chavez's policies to make his economic system more responsive to his people's needs? That gets a LMAO.
How's all that "privatizing" working out? Let me check the economic data .............................. Oh, there's a world wide economic recession! Coincidence?
21 Apr 09
Originally posted by spruce112358Generally agreed.
Milton Friedman often pointed out that government interference in a free market tended to make things more expensive. So if one aspect of "better off" is being able to afford, say, a DVD player -- let's examine Cuba.
For a long time, the government said people could not own DVD players. So what was the cost? Essentially infinite.
Then, Raul Castro ...[text shortened]... produce a society which is materially "better off" than would result from a free market.
Although socialism is a drag to growth and a hinderance, however, I think that some countries have a lot of other things going for them that makes up for some of the drag from partially mixed economies.
However, I agree that a market economy is one of the most important and critical factors to drive growth and innovation.
21 Apr 09
Originally posted by scherzo1. The subjective view of it as a good thing is debatable, given that the rules of the game were changed.
[b]1. At least you admit that they went against the existing Constitutions of the time.
But that was a good thing.
2. Tomato, tomatoe... just a misspelling, not a political scandal or anything.
On this forum, anything and everything can be interpreted as a political scandal.
3. We agree that socialists states tend to fall down
...[text shortened]... d part, you gotta admit that was funny, just being facetious there, nothing more.[/b]
I see.[/b]
2. I see. Not a bad response at all, I got a kick out of it.
3. Now this one is even funnier. We did agree on that first part of the point though... they tend to fall. There may be a bounce back from gains from an increased savings rate in the short term, but the destruction of economic incentives and attempted control against self interest is a tough one for your preferred ideology to ever make up for. So if you write of the USSR and China, do you accept Venezuela as an example of socialism (are you guys really that desperate to put your hopes in the hands of the clown prince Hugo Chavez???)
Venezuela = OIL
Declining price of oil exports, fixed expenses, debt obligations, interest on debt, unsustainable fixed official exchange rate, growing expenses at state-run companies... what I'm getting at is that Venezuela is pretty much screwed in the medium term... by which point socialism may already be voted out if it maintains any semblance of representation of voter desires... not that Chavez will listen to the voters when he gets booted out...
21 Apr 09
Originally posted by no1marauderHere's some data, Venezuela is in the top 6 world oil reseves
Your assertions are noted. They are not based on any facts and/or statistics - rather it's simply the "hold yer breath till you turn blue" type of argument. You believe in your laissez faire religion and no amount of evidence is going to change your "mind".
As already stated many times in this forum, Chavez didn't end term limits - the Ven ...[text shortened]... ..................... Oh, there's a world wide economic recession! Coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#cite_note-15
Saudi Arabia 267 42.4 10.2 1,620 72
Canada 179 28.5 3.3 520 149
Iran 138 21.9 4.0 640 95
Iraq 115 18.3 2.1 330 150
Kuwait 104 16.5 2.6 410 110
United Arab Emirates 98 15.6 2.9 460 93
Venezuela 87 13.8 2.7 430 88
Venezuela is also 6th in exports.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
It is an oil-based economy that Chavez was too eager to spend to save from the oil-price declines. He should've saved more money and greater foreign exchange reserves as well as prevented building so much of his spending.
Not to challenge your "mind" with too many concepts and facts though.
Chavez put on the ballot earning term limits and campaigned for it. He also had it apply to him. He pushed for it and used the powers of the state to push for it, plus he used populism... he gave away goodies that he could afford during the period of high oil prices.
That is the only way he temporarily "improved the lot" of anyone: in the short term.
The US economy may face periods of boom and bust, but then it also grows richer than the socialist economies on net. Don't forget Chavez will be suffering too, since his commodities rose in price due to supply constraints in some countries and growing demand from others (not internally from the Venezuelan economy).
You laugh that the US government may actually have to correct a market failure? Wow, you are one of the few people in the world would expect total perfection from the US capitalist economy and then extols the virtues of socialism. Don't you see your own contradictions?
Why does Venezuela to you get a buy for its struggles and food shortages and high inflation and plummeting revenues... WHY? Still LYAO? He may have meant to help his people, but now there are food shortages... woops, he did it again. How bout you go visit venezuela and visit the US and decide which economy offers the best living standards and future prospects? In less than 5 years, you will back away from your praises of Venezuelan wealth... that is REALLY sad because it took the USSR about 75 years and China about 50 years to change course.
Hey, how's all the world's nationalizations working out? Oh that's right, they reversed course during the decades of struggling economies that were not explained by symple economic fluctuation (coincidence?)... they were long-term structural problems... they were laibiltiies to their economies.
Say, after all that privatizing in the early 1980's US, the stock markets are more than twice as high as they were back then.... the economy is bigger, the US created trillions in wealth through the internet revolution including through EBAY, YAHOO, GOOGLE, AMAZON... so many new jobs and so much new wealth... (coincidence?)
But I'm sure you will think of some comparable innovations that have been coming out of a socialist economy somewhere in the world, right?
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
21 Apr 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI say its a step in the right direction. This ridiculous 47 year old cold war that we've imposed on Cuba has got to stop and lets face it Venezuela is no worse off than before with Chavez running things. At least I've seen no hard evidence that suggests that it is. US Foreign Policy needs to stop creating enemies simply because their form of government is not the same as ours.
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad -- President Obama offered a spirit of cooperation to America's hemispheric neighbors at a summit Saturday, listening to complaints about past U.S. meddling and even reaching out to Venezuela's leftist leader.
While he worked to ease friction between the United States and their countries, Obama cautioned leaders at the Summit o ...[text shortened]... ng and "for us or against us" blather of our last administration. Kudos to him.
I think its embarrassing that the USA was so quick to recognize the new proclaimed leaders that had supposedly ousted Chavez in 2002. Then when our government realized the coup failed it was: "Ooops, we were just kidding!" Pathetic. Could we be any more obvious in demonstrating that we had a hand in attempting to oust a foreign government that we are not at war with?
Personally, I hope that Obama can undo some of the damage that has been done. We'll see.